Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1985.  If your impression, expressed in the first paragraph, is correct, may God forgive me.  Certainly our whole thrust must be to defend the lives of the preborn, not defend any particular organization’s decisions, good or bad.  Nowhere in the article, which appeared on page 6 of the September issue of The Interim, was there any attempt to defend the actions of anyone.  The title of the article was “An Analysis of Bill 53.”  The article analyzed the Bill with one consideration in mind: would Bill 53 have helped or hindered us to defend the lives of preborn children?

To take up the points raised by Mr. Schuck:

Although the intention behind the title may have been to confound the pro-abortionists, it does not imply that, once a woman is informed, she may still “choose” to have an abortion.  One may have to tolerate error and evil, but one may never contribute to them.  Therefore, to contribute to a “choice” philosophy, as the title does, is morally unacceptable.

The fact that Mr. Schuck brings up the conclusion of my article as his second point means that he read my article in the wrong sequence.  The Interim is to blame for the unusual order which required the reader to pass from the first column above the photo to the next column, and then to return to the first column below the photo for the conclusion.  Granted this slip by The Interim which could confuse the reader, my conclusion in the article is that, if passed, pro-abortion forces (e.g. “Therapeutic” Abortion Committees or TACs) would have claimed to have informed women as required.  You tell us that TACs assert that now.  My point is that if the Bill had passed, the TACs would seem vindicated, while today everyone knows that they are merely rubber stamps for abortion.  The point about legal action was fully answered in my article and you didn’t even refer to my arguments.

The third objection is, in essence, a repetition of the second objection.  I argued, and continue to maintain, that TACs are completely unsuitable instruments to inform women on any aspect of abortion.  Mr. Schuck tells us that they are merely neutral at worst.  I maintain that they are never neutral because they manipulate minds, as explained in my article.  The statement about Bills on topics such as agriculture and tourism hardly bears comment.  Bills which have nothing to so with abortion cannot be manipulated by pro-abortion forces for their own purposes.

Let us now take up the six points Mr. Schuck claims the article completely overlooked.  Admittedly, I did not go into the positive aspects of Bill53 in my article because it is my hope that the Bill be resubmitted after it is amended along the lines suggested in the article.  I agree with points 1, 2, 4 and 5.  As regards #3, as mentioned above, I find it unacceptable that someone who is sitting on a “therapeutic” abortion committee, a tribunal which is ready to send an innocent victim to execution, should be entrusted in any way with accurately informing a woman about abortion.

As regard #6, I was informed from Saskatchewan that Premier Devine’s Government was supposed to have used party discipline in voting on Bill 53.  The same observation was made by MLA Gay Caswell, the proponent of the Bill, to enquiries from Campaign Life in Toronto.  In fact, the Government voted unanimously to refer the Bill to the Court of Appeal.  This certainly dashed any hope that Bill 53 would have provided the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Movement with an opportunity to mark score cards on MLAs before the next provincial election.

My primary objection to the Bill is not that it is not pro-life enough but, as I state in the conclusion of my article, “Bill 53 could be one more way for therapeutic abortion committees to manipulate minds as they do at present by their use of the word health, etc.”

I must also point out that Bill 53 is not at all the same as those promoted by Right to Life groups in the United States.  In the States there is no such death tribunal as a “therapeutic” abortion committee which would be entrusted with the duty to “inform” women about the true nature of abortion.  Given my extensive experience in dealing with people involved in abortion, such as members sitting on abortion committees, I can vouch that the vast majority of them become infected with intellectual and moral blindness such that they cannot be entrusted to do anything which would dissuade a woman from an abortion.  Our Lord’s saying that “No one can serve two masters” applies to members of abortion committees also.

I take the last comment which lumped me with Planned Parenthood and a wide coalition of homosexual and radical feminist organizations as an emotional outburst rather than a reasoned response.

To conclude, although I gave a negative overall assessment of the Bill, I wish all of you in Saskatchewan every success in resubmitting Bill 53 in a form which retains its present merits and which amends its serious weaknesses so that it may further the protection of the basic right of the preborn.